First off let me apologize for taking so long to respond, I did not know you responded to my post until a few minutes ago.

Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to
hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of
traffic.

It is not directly racist in its text format. But using common sense to understand that including this in an immigration reform bill is aimed at
people who search for work on street corners and in front of certain businesses.

Weak argument

Authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any
public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

I wonder how many professional lawyers they hired to make sure it does not sound racist? Anyways... What qualifies as probable cause to believe
someone has commited a public offense? They could just say, "hey he's a Mexican, I don't like Mexicans" and under these narrow guidelines he could
arrest a person upon suspicion without a warrant or even knowing anything happened. Such as just walking down the street and looking like you belong
to a gang.

Moderate argument

Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where
reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an
investigation.

Lawful contact? So in any situation where there is no infringement upon the law is occuring a police officer is permitted to stop a person and ask to
see their papers. I wonder what reasonable suspicion would be then, it could be anything under the rainbow.

We have people complaining about the census and how much of a threat it is to privacy, and then we have these same people going on about how there is
absolutely no problem for law enforcement to have authority to come to your house, or to you on the street, and demand your papers. Both appear to
contradict one another, both arguments typically from the same people. The only real difference is that one is at a state level, the other is at a
Federal level, one will largely affect a certain racial group, the other spans all ethnic groups.

Interesting when you look at the similarities, then the differences between these two arguments right?

The Mexican president got a standing ovation and to be frank I could not give a damn, This law is complete waste, passed conveniently during the 2010
elections (just in time you know?). It targets potentially every day american citizens, 'papers please' when you are taking your kids to the park.
You cannot move freely in this country without potentially being harassed by law enforcement simply because 'look' out of place. Yet this is somehow
going to solve the illegal immigration problem right? And while the big businesses continue to hire these illegals and continue to save millions, the
law certainly will not be focusing on them. No, nope, these same politicians behind the bill will not give law enforcement that same authority to just
waltz in and demand papers and information from these businesses, neither will there be a crackdown. After all, these businesses lobby and pay half
the salaries of these politicians, so why not distract the population by targeting the brownies themselves right? Its a win win situation for the
these politican opportunists. Act as if you give a damn about the issue, and at the same time cover up for your business buddies. Its perfect.

I keep on hearing this argument that the bill will not allow racial profiling, or that it does not mention racial profiling. Its like passing a law
that will give registered sex offenders the right to be in contact with children. I mean we can certainly argue that the law specifically states that
these sex offenders cannot assualt these children, but who is to say that will not happen? As I said, this law is a joke, and so long as the
businesses continue to hire these illegals, and so long as the same politicians behind this bill continue to point fingers somewhere else, the problem
will persist. Conservatives want to focus on the brown man, when the issue goes beyond just that. It's just so much more easier to score votes when
you make out a scapegoat... which preferbly comes in the form of a person. In this case an hispanic man waving the Mexican flag.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We have people complaining about the census and how much of a threat it is to privacy, and then we have these same people going on about how there is
absolutely no problem for law enforcement to have authority to come to your house, or to you on the street, and demand your papers. Both appear to
contradict one another, both arguments typically from the same people. The only real difference is that one is at a state level, the other is at a
Federal level, one will largely affect a certain racial group, the other spans all ethnic groups.

Interesting when you look at the similarities, then the differences between these two arguments right?

The Mexican president got a standing ovation and to be frank I could not give a damn, This law is complete waste, passed conveniently during the 2010
elections (just in time you know?). It targets potentially every day american citizens, 'papers please' when you are taking your kids to the park.
You cannot move freely in this country without potentially being harassed by law enforcement simply because 'look' out of place. Yet this is somehow
going to solve the illegal immigration problem right? And while the big businesses continue to hire these illegals and continue to save millions, the
law certainly will not be focusing on them. No, nope, these same politicians behind the bill will not give law enforcement that same authority to just
waltz in and demand papers and information from these businesses, neither will there be a crackdown. After all, these businesses lobby and pay half
the salaries of these politicians, so why not distract the population by targeting the brownies themselves right? Its a win win situation for the
these politican opportunists. Act as if you give a damn about the issue, and at the same time cover up for your business buddies. Its perfect.

I keep on hearing this argument that the bill will not allow racial profiling, or that it does not mention racial profiling. Its like passing a law
that will give registered sex offenders the right to be in contact with children. I mean we can certainly argue that the law specifically states that
these sex offenders cannot assualt these children, but who is to say that will not happen? As I said, this law is a joke, and so long as the
businesses continue to hire these illegals, and so long as the same politicians behind this bill continue to point fingers somewhere else, the problem
will persist. Conservatives want to focus on the brown man, when the issue goes beyond just that. It's just so much more easier to score votes when
you make out a scapegoat... which preferbly comes in the form of a person. In this case an hispanic man waving the Mexican flag.

Read the law online and cut and paste where it says they can do those things.. Please show me.

Of course the president of mexico is not going to support this bill. My god, if mexicans in the USA start to lose work and there will be less money
being sent back to the familys in mexico, which will lower there GDP because no one has any money to spend! Also, should the bill in that state be
successful, it paves the way for other states to follow suit, and then what? US-mexicans get returned over the boarder, increasing the strain on
mexico's resources, until the country can no longer handle it and then crime hits the roof while people starve to death and a small % of the mexican
population continue to live in luxury.
Maybe they will deport all the illegals back to mexico and then big multinational companies will move their bussiness from america to mexico and then
we may witness reverse migration!

The irony of it all, obviously we are at the mercy of capitalism. This is indeed all about money is it not?

calderon is just upset because he wants the cartel members to stay in the US since he cant deal with them.

And I dont see what the big deal on the AZ law is, because if you get pulled over a cop asks you for your ID (license), if you dont have it you can
get arrested. same situation basically except they can send the illegals to get deported.

This is the funniest post I've read all day.... you obviously have no concept of what the Senate is about... you do know that it's not supposed to
reflect public opinion right? That's the job of the House of Representatives.... the Senate is a much different animal....

Here is your American History Lesson for today....

House member are elected directly by voters in districts drawn by their State governments. Each district would contain approximately 30,000
people. These districts would be redrawn every 10 years after the census to reflect population shifts. After the 1920 census, the size of the House
was capped at 435. So now, instead of the number of House members growing every 10 years, the population size of each district grows. Senators, on the
other hand, were chosen by their state legislatures. This would be changed by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Now, the people of each
state directly elect their Senators.

Different Responsibilities of the House and Senate

There are also some differences in the responsibilities given to each body. Revenue bills, or any bills that deal with raising money for the federal
government, must be first introduced in the House before they can go to the Senate. And, only the Senate approves treaties and presidential
appointments. In addition, for impeachment, the House brings the charges of impeachment and the impeachment trial takes place in the Senate. The
Senate serves as the jury, deciding whether the accused is found guilty or not guilty of the charges. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides
over the trial.

The Founder’s Expectations for the House Versus the Senate

Taken together, these differences show us that our nation’s founders expected the Senate to be wiser, nobler, and more detached from the people. The
House, on the other hand, was expected to be more in touch with the people. The House would respond well to the desires of the people, but also be
more impulsive. The Senate would be slow to change to public opinion, but also prevent more radical shifts in public policy.

Good point of reference. But, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Calderon spoke to a Joint Session of congress in The House and the standing ovation was despicable. The only thing missing was a noise maker from
Pelosi a Pinata drop from the ceiling and a pitcher of Margaritas for the gang.

We are surrounded by enemies looking to cut our throats and people think we should vote them out? I think we need to contemplate the magnitude of what
is actually happening here. Did the spartans try to vote out Xerxes?

Originally posted by ker2010
Read the law online and cut and paste where it says they can do those things.. Please show me.

You know full well what part of the law I am refering to. The part of the law which grants police officers the right to demand papers from individuals
anywhere with reasonable suspicion. The police officers do not need to prove guilt to demand papers from an individual so a police officer
can pick out individuals based on their race and demand they present papers. It does not matter if the law prohibits racial profiling, it does
not make a difference that the governor claims that nobody will be racially profiled, individual police officers can still abuse the law
without admitting to anything.

You continue to deny and tell us all here there will be no racial profiling, but you know damn well that there is nothing preventing a police officer
from doing so secretly. They do not need to be accountable as to why.

As to the other parts of the bill, it is completely useless. Other parts of the bill where it is illegal to transport illegal immigrants, where it is
illegal to hire them for work, these are all laws already well in place for years. This law just rewrites other laws already in place to cover
up for the power it has just given law enforcement. It does not enforce the other laws any further, any differently, aside from the fact of give
police officers the power to harass individuals on a daily basis based on no warrant, proof or real explanation.

Good point of reference. But, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Calderon spoke to a Joint Session of congress in The House and the standing ovation was despicable. The only thing missing was a noise maker from
Pelosi a Pinata drop from the ceiling and a pitcher of Margaritas for the gang.

Ahh.. I was responding to the OP referring to Senators...

My bad... I still don't see what's the big deal.... its a controversial law here in the US... many in congress support it.... many do not.... And
those who sided with Calderons views expressed their sympathy for some of his points...

Isn't that what free speech is all about? Maybe I missed something, but when did we start hating on others for political views? We should disagree
on views not be upset that another person has different views than us.

Good point of reference. But, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Calderon spoke to a Joint Session of congress in The House and the standing ovation was despicable. The only thing missing was a noise maker from
Pelosi a Pinata drop from the ceiling and a pitcher of Margaritas for the gang.

Ahh.. I was responding to the OP referring to Senators...

My bad... I still don't see what's the big deal.... its a controversial law here in the US... many in congress support it.... many do not.... And
those who sided with Calderons views expressed their sympathy for some of his points...

Isn't that what free speech is all about? Maybe I missed something, but when did we start hating on others for political views? We should disagree
on views not be upset that another person has different views than us.

I'm all for free speech but should this apply so liberally to Calderon? He commented from the WH lawn and then in this address to congress. Not to
mention all of his previous comments prior to his royal treatment.

Calderon so blatantly ignores the aggressive immigration laws in his own country and yet chooses to attack Arizona's enforcement of the federal law
and sadly gets a standing O from the very people who have done nothing to enforce the laws on our books.

It does not compute with me. Our president rolled out the red carpet for this man and all he does is criticize with the full support of Obama and the
Dems in congress.

This just smells like a huge set up for the 2010 and 2012 elections. Gotta get that hispanic vote at all costs.

Really? you are quite the racist yourself. You just stereotyped every person in the south as being stupid. What is your IQ?

There were some racist cops before this bill was passed, and guess what, there will always be some racist cops, and racist postal workers,
firefighters, healthcare workers, plumbers, cooks, computer programers and so on, and so on. The list is almost endless.
Just ask black people if they think they have been pulled over because of their race, oh and I bet the cops asked for their ID (papers).
I don't care as much about deporting people, as I do PROTECTING OUR BORDERS. We cannot allow people to jump the fence, so to speak, and invade our
country illegally, and that goes for every single race on this planet. You cannot just hitch a ride on US citizen's back, while you plot to kill or
harm us. It has to stop, before someone brings a freakin' nuke across and kills us all, even us stupid people in the south.

A new Rasmussen poll shows 55 percent of U.S. voters support the idea of allowing police to stop and check the status of suspected illegal
immigrants. One out of three in the 1,000 person national survey oppose that notion.

Nearly 70% support what the Arizona law actually allows.

Another 69 percent support the idea of requiring police to check identification and immigration papers when writing traffic tickets if they
suspect the person is in the U.S. illegally. Twenty-three percent oppose that concept.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.